The Top Ten Reasons Why "We" Can't Win:

10. To win a war on terror, the U.S. must first fight a war on terror. Since the 9/11 attacks, the neo-fascist neocons in the so-called republican party have picked fights with a lot of people -- the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, "Old" Europe, the Democrats in Washington, the "Liberal" Media, Hollywood, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran -- but Osama truly bin-forgotten.

9. For the same reasons "we" can't win the war on drugs. Because a phony p.r. campaign designed solely to elect republicans by using lies and disinformation to control the media and scare the crap out of ill-informed voters is, by definition, doomed to fail. (As a means of electing republicans and maintaining one-party rule, it's been a huge success.)

8. Because wars are best avoided unless absolutely necessary, and (if necessary) are won by uniting ones allies and dividing ones enemies in a just cause. Which as near as I can tell is the exact opposite of the Christofascist neo-con strategery of declaring war on dar-al-Islam and then proceeding to alienate the remainder of the planet in the pursuit of dubious objectives (read: crusade for oil) that have nothing to do with 9/11.

7. Because few Americans speak Arabic (or Farsi, Hindi-Urdu, or pretty much any other foreign language). It's difficult to win hearts and minds if one is unable to communicate and totally ignorant about the part of the world at issue (see: Vietnam, U.S. war in). Hint: one's zealous opposition to abortion and gay marriage probably isn't the most pertinent qualification for work in the Green Zone (see: Karen Hughes, propaganda).

OK, I don't read letters longer than two or three paragraphs, and don't expect anyone else to do so, either, so I'll stop. If you've hung in there this far, you get the point.

A world war between Muslims and Catholics -- what an awesome idea. Why didn't I think of that? The brilliance of these Bush-Cheney apologists who want to build a bridge to the 14th century is truly breathtaking. Now excuse me while I go take a shower.

Christians and Jews do not riot over Muslim insults? I imagine THEIR response would be that Christians and Jews bomb and invade Muslim lands. So here's my suggestion: as the crimes and follies of the Christians are roughly equal in magnitude to those of the Muslims up to this point in history, rather than trying to ignite yet another pointless and destructive religious war, simply call it even -- and then go after the real terrorists (who bin-forgotten).

These letters from the small group of right-wing intellectual giants who recently have taken to writing to Salon tell me that religious fanatics of all stripes essentially share the same concern, that modernization is making superstition obsolete. And I doubt if it matters much to the victims in Oklahoma City, New York, Madrid, or Baghdad, the name of the particular religion or ideology for which they were murdered.

As has been proven many times over, including by the recent admissions of both Bush Jr. and Cheney, the U.S. invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or harboring terrorists. Zip. Nichts. Nada. No WMD. and no 9/11 connection, yet these morons insist they would do it all over again. Which brings us back to the original question of why "we" can't win the "war on terror", and to my response, that the Christofascist ideologues currently guiding the U.S. military-industrial complex are so astoundingly ignorant of what the West is up against, that they somehow convinced themselves invading Iraq would be a smart thing to do -- and not as foolish as attacking Brazil would have been in response to Pearl Harbor.

Meanwhile, in the reality-based world, Osama bin-forgotten, and al-Qaeda continues to attack the West, FIVE FREAKIN' YEARS after 9/11. If any of this had happened under a President Clinton, Gore, or Kerry, you right-wing intellectual giants would be screaming at the top of your lungs for impeachment. But what they hey? It looks like abortion will soon be re-criminalized in the red states, so I guess the unnecessary deaths of 50,000 people just so Bush-Cheney could campaign as a wartime president was all worth it; right?

and the Christofascist approach of dividing the world into armed Judeo-Christian and Muslim camps is not the solution. Rounding up the gang of criminals responsible for the 9/11 attacks was the solution, and should have taken about six months -- one year tops. Wars are won by uniting allies and isolating enemies. Instead, Bush-Cheney declared war on a quarter of the planet, and then did everything possible to alienate the remainder. That's why "we" can't win the "war on terror", which is a complete farce, and is really aimed at defeating Democrats. Had a President Clinton, Gore, or Kerry failed to find bin-Laden and stop al-Qaeda, republicans would be howling for impeachment, which is what we ought to be doing, rather than parroting the right-wing politics of hate and bigotry.

Europe indeed faces a difficult problem in the immediate presence of large numbers of non-assimilating Muslim immigrants originally from rural areas. That does not, however, translate into a military threat, much less a military threat against the United States. That is why I detest Bush-Cheney for, a) not going after al-Qaeda; b) declaring war on all of Islam, with the applause of the Christofascist base; and, c) using Fear (of unpursued terrorists) and War (a crusade for oil based on lies) as tools to bash the hapless Democrats, over and over and over again. They, not I, have divided America, divided the West, and divided the world. The names of Bush-Cheney will live in infamy; and yes, these people, who hate democracy as much as they hate "liberals", are the biggest threat to peace and freedom.

Thanks to Salon for providing the forum for this very interesting exchange, and for making this thread available long after it normally would have been taken down.